💾 Archived View for gemini.spam.works › mirrors › textfiles › magazines › CUD › cud0780.txt captured on 2022-06-12 at 10:59:55.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Computer underground Digest Wed Oct 11, 1995 Volume 7 : Issue 80
ISSN 1004-042X
Editors: Jim Thomas and Gordon Meyer (TK0JUT2@MVS.CSO.NIU.EDU
Archivist: Brendan Kehoe
Shadow Master: Stanton McCandlish
Field Agent Extraordinaire: David Smith
Shadow-Archivists: Dan Carosone / Paul Southworth
Ralph Sims / Jyrki Kuoppala
Ian Dickinson
Cu Digest Homepage: http://www.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest
CONTENTS, #7.80 (Wed, Oct 11, 1995)
File 1--Charges against Lorne Shantz dropped.
File 2--Am Action BBS (Rob't Thomas) appeal in 6th Circuit
File 3--Telecommunications Act Re-write list and WWW site
File 4--Re: Minnesota Law (#1)
File 5--Re: "Emperor's Virtual Clothes"
File 6--File 1--Minnesota A.G. Erects Electronic Wall Around State
File 7--The Computer Law Report #11 (9/29/94) (fwd)
File 8--New Web site on government censorship
File 9--New Jersey BBS Sting (excerpts)
File 10--Cu Digest Header Info (unchanged since 19 Apr, 1995)
CuD ADMINISTRATIVE, EDITORIAL, AND SUBSCRIPTION INFORMATION APPEARS IN
THE CONCLUDING FILE AT THE END OF EACH ISSUE.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 1995 22:17:08 -0500 (CDT)
From: David Smith <bladex@BGA.COM>
Subject: File 1--Charges against Lorne Shantz dropped.
The following article is excerpted from CompuNotes. I've included the
header information and the article about Lorne Shantz, who is the Arizona
DPS officer initially indicted for distributing obscene material online.
David Smith * Next EFF-Austin appearance : Armadillocon
bladex@bga.com * Panel discussion : "Crypto-Cyberporn on the
President, EFF-Austin * Planet Newt" -- October 6, 4:00 to 5:00
Board of Directors, CTCLU *
---------- Forwarded message ----------
9/26/95 CompuNotes Issue #21
Patrick Grote, Publisher and Editor
CompuNotes is a weekly publication available through an email
distribution list and many fine on-line networks!
We feature reviews, interviews and commentary concerning the PC industry.
This Week's Contents:
=====================
PATRICK'S VIEWS
===============
-=> Why Buy Windows 95 <=-
-=> Review Response <=-
NEWS
====
-=> Microsoft Money for Free <=-
-=> Taking Classes on the Net? <=-
REVIEWS
=======
-=> CloseUp 6.1 for LANs Reviewed by Patrick Grote <=-
-=> Alien Logic Reviewed by Doug Reed <=-
WEB SITE OF THE WEEK
====================
-=> EPUB Web Is Amazing <=-
FTP FILE OF THE WEEK
====================
-=> Darn! <=-
INTERVIEW
=========
-=> Lorne Shantz Update <=-
To subscribe, send a message to subscribe@supportu.com
with subscribe in body.
To unsubscribe, send a message to unsubscribe@supportu.com
with unsubscribe in body.
Comments should be sent to feedback@supportu.com.
Voice: (314) 984-9691
BBS : (314) 984-8387
FAX : (314) 984-9981
All old copies available from anonymous FTP at
ftp.uu.net:/published/compunotes
CD-ROM Online Magazine is another good resource. You can subscribe free
by sending an email message to CDRMag@nsimultimedia.com with the word
subscribe in the body of the text!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[deleted rest of issue]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
INTERVIEW OF THE WEEK | Interesting people you should know about . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Many of you will remember our interview with Lorne when he was going
through the legal battle after his BBS was shut down. Well, there is
justice in the world! Read on . . .
Wishbook BBS Charges Dropped
Monday, September 18, 1995
This morning all criminal charges against Lorne E. Shantz, Sysop of
The Wishbook BBS, were ordered dismissed by the court. The dismissal
was ordered to be "with prejudice," meaning that criminal charges can
never again be filed against Lorne in this matter. The Court also
signed orders allowing for the release of information pertaining to
Grand Jury actions in the case. Because of these orders it is now
possible to discuss some of the heretofore secret aspects of this case.
Lorne E. Shantz was the subject of a search warrant in November,
1995 during which, his BBS equipment and software were seized by police
authorities upon an allegation that the BBS was distributing obscene
material. Although Lorne had maintained a strict, public policy against
the uploading of material depicting beastiality, excrement, and child
pornography and had personally screened all uploads to physically
eliminate this type of material, certain .gifs contained on name-brand
CD-Roms were alleged to have contained examples. Lorne maintained, from
the beginning that he bought the CD-Rom disks openly and based upon
their national advertising in mainstream computer publications and in
reliance upon their representation as being "BBS-Ready." Because of this
representation, the wide-spread use of these CD-Rom disks on other BBS
systems and because of the sheer size and number of images, Lorne did
not screen every image.
In January, 1995 Lorne's BBS equipment was returned to him with the
exception of all of his CD-Rom disks (even those not alleged to contain
contraband material) and other equipment relating to the CD-Rom system.
In March, 1995, a Grand Jury considered the filing of criminal
charges against Shantz. Pursuant to the Criminal Rules, the Prosecutor
was notified that Lorne would agree to waive his privilege against
self-incrimination and would testify before the Grand Jury. The
Prosecutor claimed to have forgotten this formal offer and proceeded to
obtain an Indictment without notifying the Grand Jury. The Prosecutor
then offered Lorne the opportunity to address the Grand Jury but did not
inform Lorne or myself that the Grand Jury had already indicted him.
Lorne was charged, criminally, with 20 counts of distributing obscene
material.
When the Defense learned of these Grand Jury improprieties, it filed
a Motion challenging the indictment and asking that the matter be
remanded to another, impartial Grand Jury panel. The Court agreed and
ordered the matter remanded.
In July, 1995 Lorne appeared before another Grand Jury panel.
Because Court rules do not allow a Defense Attorney to address the Grand
Jury, Lorne was required to solely address that body. Lorne was superb
at that proceeding, calmly but firmly telling the Grand Jury that he had
no idea of the existence of the material on his BBS and defending his
reputation both as a Sysop and Police Officer. At the conclusion of
those proceedings, this Grand Jury did not vote an Indictment and chose,
instead to end their inquiry.
The Prosecution chose not to proceed to alternative methods of
charging Shantz, but instead offered to dismiss all criminal charges.
The State requested that Lorne agree to promise that he would not offer
the .gif images named in the Indictment on his BBS in the future. Since
Lorne had publicly testified, under oath, that he never intended to
offer such images, he was perfectly willing to so agree. The agreement
was accepted by the court this morning and, accordingly, all criminal
charges were ordered dismissed.
Still undetermined is the status of Lorne's job as a State Trooper.
On the date that the Indictment was made public, Lorne was fired from
the position he held for approximately 14 years and all accrued
benefits, including his pension, were forfeited. That firing is
presently under administrative appeal.
Lorne will still have to repair a broken life and a new marriage
that, unfortunately, has not yet seen peaceful times.
My personal feelings of gratification for today's events is exceeded
only by my profound sense of gratitude for all of the friends who have
supported Lorne in the Nets and especially on the RIME conferences. In
the early days, friends were few and very timid, but the folks on RIME
were among the first supporters and certainly the most enthusiastic!
Momentum slowly gathered and by July, support had become wide-spread and
open.
Lorne's victory today is certainly a victory for all of his loyal
friends and supporters. I truly hope that each of you will share our
pride and happiness today.
------------------------------
From: hkhenson@CUP.PORTAL.COM
Subject: File 2--Am Action BBS (Rob't Thomas) appeal in 6th Circuit
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 95 01:01:46 PDT
Robert Thomas (sysop of AABBS) called me this weekend to report that the
appeal is on his case is being heard Oct. 11. Robert is hopefull that
he will be let out of the Federal prison at Springfield pending the
decision of the Sixth Circuit appeals court. The AABSS case, for those
who were not here last year, was one where a postal inspector downloaded
adult .gifs from a BBS near San Jose, California to Memphis, Tennessee.
He then had the owners indited in Memphis and tried there by a jury--none
of whom had a computer or knew the slightest thing about cyberspace.
Robert was given 37 months, his wife about six months less.
Keith Henson
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 1995 10:14:18 -0400
From: "W. K. (Bill) Gorman" <bj496@CLEVELAND.FREENET.EDU
Subject: File 3--Telecommunications Act Re-write list and WWW site
This is the first news I have seen of this MI Telecom Bill in-state on the
net. This thing is being kept VERY quiet - usually a bad sign where
politicians are concerned.
Why a MODERATED list? Is someone afraid the politicos' feelings might be hurt?
=================== Forwarded Message ===================
Newsgroups-- bit.listserv.new-list
Date-- Sun, 8 Oct 1995 21:25:21 CDT
From-- Thom Byxbe <byxbe@DigitalRealm.Com
Subject-- NEW;mtalist - Michigan Telecommunications Act Re-write List
mtalist on mtalist@digitalrealm.com
MTALIST, a Moderated mailing list, has been started to discuss the
Michigan Telecommunications Act re-write currently underway in the
Michigan legislature. This list will act as a tool to communicate
information about the act and it's ramifications on the citizens of
Michigan.
This act is being rushed through committee and there is very little
time to act. Please use this tool to communicate opinions and to
rally support. It is IMPORTANT that we move VERY quickly to ensure
that this rewrite is fair to ALL of Michigans citizens.
For more information on the act please visit this WWW site:
http://www.rust.net/~jack/mta.html
TO SUBSCRIBE send e-mail to: mtalist@digitalrealm.com
Place the word SUBSCRIBE in the Subject line and *ONLY* your
E-Mail address in the body of the message
TO UNSUBSCRIBE send e-mail to: mtalist@digitalrealm.com
Place the word UNSUBSCRIBE in the Subject line and *ONLY* your
E-Mail address in the body of the message
TO CONTRIBUTE to the list send mail to: mtalist@digitalrealm.com
Owner: Thom Byxbe <byxbe@DigitalRealm.com
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 1995 10:49:59 -0400
From: trebor@ANIMEIGO.COM(Robert J. Woodhead (AnimEigo))
Subject: File 4--Re: Minnesota Law (#1)
Michael Gersten <michael@STB.INFO.COM> writes regarding Minnesota laws:
> Minnesota's general criminal jurisdiction statute provides as
>follows:
Most states have the same laws, btw. Here are the famous examples
that explain why:
> A person may be convicted and sentenced under the
> law of this State if the person:
>
> (1) Commits an offense in whole or in part within
> this state; or
I shoot and kill someone in the state of Minnesota.
> (2) Being without the state, causes, aids or abets
> another to commit a crime within the state; or
I throw a gun over the state line to an accomplice in Minnesota who
shoots and kills someone.
> (3) Being without the state, intentionally causes a
> result within the state prohibited by the criminal laws
> of this state.
I shoot a bullet over the state line and kill someone (don't laugh,
this has happened!)
> It is not a defense that the defendant's conduct is
> also a criminal offense under the laws of another state
> or of the United States or of another country.
>If we go after AT&T and the US P.S., then maybe the Minnesota
>judges will recognize limits to this law.
Well now, common carriers are strange beasts, because they don't know
the content (or at least, they aren't supposed to know) of what they
carry. Thus if person A used AT&T to surf the web and commit some crime,
AT&T would not be liable. Person A's internet provider probably would
be in the clear, assuming the provider had no knowledge of A's intent.
>As to the web, if I'm outside of minnesota, and someone inside of
>minnesota gets my page and reads it, then isn't the crime caused
>when they pull my page to them?
The question becomes, who committed what crime? In the case of the
Internet, and high-tech in general, this is an unsettled question, mostly
because now we have agents (computers) that can do things automatically
on our behalf.
Eventually the law will evolve some reasonable guidelines; particular juris-
dictions will have a responsibility for publishing what is and is not
acceptable, and providers will have a responsibility to attempt to abide
by these rules (if technical means exist), in return for which they will be
shielded.
><SIGH>. Whatever happened to the concept of individual
>responsibility in the law? Why am I responsible for every one else?
You are responsible for your own actions. The problem is that in today's
society, your actions (like publishing a web page) can have global
repercussions. The law is struggling to deal with those issues, and it
isn't easy. And yes, people are going to get caught in the middle along
the way.
We are, as the chinese curse goes, living in Interesting Times.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 1995 17:40:46 -0400 (EDT)
From: Ofer Inbar <cos@CS.BRANDEIS.EDU>
Subject: File 5--Re: "Emperor's Virtual Clothes"
In "The Emperor's Virtual Clothes", Alan Janesch <axj12@psu.edu> writes,
> Through his research, Moore found that the Internet, more than
> anything else, mirrors human existence in all its various forms
> -- the good as well as the bad and the ugly.
[...]
> That means that while you can indeed find "flames" (insulting
> language), "cybersex" (basically, talking dirty via real-time
> electronic mail) and pornography on the Internet, Moore says, you can
> also find intelligent, thoughtful people who care about ideas and
> issues and who also care about the people in their Internet communities.
Lumping "cybersex" and "pornography" in with "the bad and the ugly",
as contrasted with "thoughtful people who care...", is just feeding
the anti-sex propoganda which is at the heart of Internet censorship
attempts. There are many people who "care about ideas and issues"
who talk about sex on the Internet, and indeed some of the earliest
Internet communities were formed around sexual issues or interests.
The lack of censorship on the net very early on made it a good place
for gays, lesbians, people interested in BDSM, polyamory, and so on.
Many of these are topics that would-be censors consider "inappropriate
for children", and censorship attempts are aimed directly at these
Internet communities. Janesch's (Moore's?) defense of "people who
care about the people in their Internet communities" is quite ironic.
------------------------------
From: Tim Scanlon <tfs@VAMPIRE.SCIENCE.GMU.EDU>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 95 20:29:22 -0400
Subject: File 6--File 1--Minnesota A.G. Erects Electronic Wall Around State
My most immidate response to this is that if the State of Minnisota is
seeking to criminalize the behavior of individuals and service
providers for activities that take place outside of the state, and are
not illigal outside of the state, then it would behoove all parties
concerned with being prosecuted under Minnisota's interpretation of
justice to avoid sending packets to Minnisota.
Perhaps the easiest way for that to occur would be for organizations
who are affected by this broad legal brush to minimize their risk
profile legaly, and stop routing packets to Minnisota. Service
providers it seems will suffer a double edeged vulnetability under
these provisions in that they will be open to prosecution from
Minnisota, and from individuals charged under Minnisota's statutes for
having transported the packets TO the state. I know that I certainly
do not want ~my~ packets sent there, and would hold any transportation
party that operated inside the state liable for doing so.
In short, connectivity is a two edged sword. Perhaps they, and
everyone else, would be better off without Minnisota having it.
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 1 Oct 1995 22:53:10 -0500 (CDT)
From: David Smith <bladex@BGA.COM>
Subject: File 7--The Computer Law Report #11 (9/29/94) (fwd)
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date-- Fri, 29 Sep 1995 13--51--39 -0400
From--Galkin@aol.com